Letter to the Editor: Audie Revnik

Dear editor,

Let's briefly reiterate the facts. The Raiders have (or had) a facility they call Gunk Werks -- a facility built to exploit the non-renewable natural resources of the jungle. The Xoco, people of CatAdore Resort, and others gathered near this facility in protest of the pollution it was bringing to the jungle. Through some series of events, still rather unclear, the facility was set on fire, resulting in a suspected release of toxic material.

This has been labeled terrorism by the Bolero News Services in your Oct. 23 article titled "Terrorists poison skies over Amazon to save environment," and the blame for it placed squarely upon the Xoco -- those natives now offhandedly referred to as terrorists, radicals, and vandals, as if that were a settled issue. Your media outlet, the only one operating in the jungle, sets forth this narrative along with a generous sprinkling of capitalist propaganda, but it does not offer much in the way of evidence, and certainly no critique of the circumstances that have led us to this point. A different perspective is needed, one from outside capitalist orthodoxy. I can write, so here I am, setting pen to paper. Call it direct action.

First of all, my aim here is not to settle any new facts. Elder Zeta of the Xoco denies setting the fire, Eve Fintan of CatAdore Resort says they did, and so it goes. My issue is with the clear and heavy-handed bias in the framing of this event. Allow me to attempt to frame it differently.

"Terrorism" is a funny word these days. We all know what it's supposed to mean, with "terror" right there in the word, but it is often applied to actions that terrorize nobody in particular -- actions that disrupt the state or prevent capitalists from achieving their goals. In this case, whoever set this fire attacked private property, specifically an oil extraction facility. And property, you see, is not people. Property cannot feel terror.

But we know why this word was applied: because the protest did not stay peaceful. Peaceful protest is frequently put on a pedestal in mass media, venerated by our entertainment sources and the state, and celebrated in our mainstream news, even when the protest's goals are in opposition to those institutions. How does one reconcile this? It's simple: non-violent protest is easy to ignore. To adapt a common saying, if peaceful protest accomplished anything, it'd be illegal. Peaceful gatherings are only effective to the degree that they represent an implicit threat of less peaceful disruption in the near future. Disruption is what gets results: work stoppages, picket lines, marches that block major thoroughfares, and, yes, the occasional seizure or carefully targeted destruction of private property.

A brief aside here -- let's define our terms. Private property (oil platforms and factories) is distinct from personal property (homes and vehicles). It is, by definition, property that does not exist without exploitation. It is property that goes unused if not for slaves or, at best, workers who are not compensated for the full value of their labor.

Facilities like this oil extractor exploit the land and exploit people. To restrict those being exploited to ignorable forms of protest leaves them effectively without recourse.

Stopping oil production in the jungle is also not "anti-progress" as Bolero News Services would have it. Oil has not been "progress" since the 19th century, and if you haven't heard, we are going to run out someday. We can do better. If we want to see progress, let's turn our resources towards constructing an offshore wind farm, and not facilities that poison this land we're attempting to colonize.

And besides, even if it was progress, then progress for whom? Who is this oil going to enrich? Me? You, the reader? The Xoco? Will all of our standards of living increase as a result of this venture? The article claims this oil helped to power schools and hospitals, but whose? Where are they? Are we to believe the Raiders were operating a charity? Do we really think they were just about to eliminate that pollution out of the goodness of their hearts but those dang terrorists stopped them? Should we believe that, on balance, oil is the most beneficial source of energy for the jungle? Because let's be clear, there's no such thing as "clean oil." Who truly benefited the most here, and in how many dollars is that benefit measured?

Again, this facility is private property, and any profits realized will remain private to its owners, regardless of who performed the labor or who was exploited along the way. That is just how capitalism works.

The Xoco's right to protest this facility is also not undermined by the fact that they have a helicopter. That sort of argument is fallacious and long-discredited. In fact, it's good that they have a helicopter! People are hurt in this jungle every day, and to say that if the Xoco want to protest pollution, then they should also ignore an efficient method of transporting an injured and immobilized sister out of danger is a callous and smug argument that avoids confronting the underlying issues.

What are those issues? Unless someone has been importing mass-produced solar-powered hovercraft, a helicopter is the best solution to a certain type of problem that the jungle has. The Xoco, like the rest of us, can only avail themselves of the solutions that living under capitalism provides, as there is no alternative. As another common saying goes, there is no such thing as ethical consumption under capitalism. Yet we all need to consume to survive, because that is the society we presently live in. Participating in society does not mean we are not allowed to critique it. Put another way, don't hate the player, hate the game.

Most of the remainder of the article is he-said-she-said gossip that doesn't deserve much attention, or asks us to cry over "lost capital" that doesn't affect the vast majority of us in the least. It resembles nothing so much as the constant political theater that occurs in the nations we colonizers come from: a storm in a teacup that draws us into pointless debates and helps to ensure that we pay no attention to the greater context.

Because here's the bigger picture: These events highlight questions that need answers, questions that some would undoubtedly prefer we don't ask. Who has the right to exploit this jungle? And when it is exploited, who profits, and what did they do to deserve it? When that exploitation is to our collective detriment, are we allowed to defend ourselves? Or should we do as this article asks, and sing together around the campfire in peaceful protest and thank capital for our helicopters?

We are away from our nation-states here. We are away from our old familiar institutions and their systematic application of force that historically protects capital more than it protects people. The only law here is our law, and capital has learned an important lesson about what that law is: if they exploit this place and its people to line their own pockets, then there is nothing preventing the people from defending themselves. As is their right.

Sincerely,

Audie Revnik